ML19262A473

Forwards Addl Info Re Tech Spec Change Request 7,Amend 1 Concerning Air Treatment Sys as Requested in AEC

ML19262A473
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	12/11/1975
From:	Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GQL-1799, NUDOCS 7910300409
Download: ML19262A473 (4)

Text

s NRC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATER!AL

• (TEMPOR ARY FORM) 1 CONTROL NO:

FILE:

FROM: ':e t. Edison Co.

DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER

) * *,

,' j *

• 12-11-75 12-15-75 XX

- TO:

~

ORIG CC OTHER SENT NRC PDR XX

':r. 2.U. 2eid 1 signyd SENT LOCAL PDH XX CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:

XXX 1

50-289 DESCRIPTION: Ltr trans the following:

ENCLOSURES: Addl Infornation.to Tech Spec Chance. No. 7 Amdt #1(Air T estment Systemd)..

(l'cye enel iec'd)

" 7.".1 G P) Q P.:*!Ak-Q PLANT NAME: Three Nile Island Unit'l FOR ACTION /INFC RMATION DFL 12-11-75 BUTLER (L)

SCHWENCER (L) ZIEMANN (L)

REG AN (E)

MEID(L)

W/ Copics W/ Ccpies W/ Copics W/ Copics W/ COPIES CLARK (L)

STOLZ (L)

DICKER (E)

LE AR (L)

Wi Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR (L)

VASSALLO (L)

KNIGHTON (E) spir.s W/ Copies W/ copies W/ Copies.

W pies KNIEL (L)

PURPLE (L)

YOUNGB LOOD (E) dr/R McLeg n

W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copics W/pcopies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION CG Fit C TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST A/T IN D.

%!HG a'OR SCHROEDER GRIMES R. DIGGS (L)

B R AITM AN OGC, ROOM P 506A MACCARY GAMMILL H. GE AllN (L)

SA LTZM AN GOSSICK/STAF F KNIGHT KASTNER E. GOU LBOURNE (L)

ME LTZ CASE 4@AWLICKl BALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)

GIAMBUSSO SHAO SP ANG LE R J. LEE (L)

PLANS BOYD STELLO M. NUT.mR00RL)

MCDONALD MOORE (L)

HOUSTON

_ ENVIRO S. REED (E)

CHAPMAN DEYOUNG (L)

NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (L)

DUBE (Ltr)

SKOVHOLT (L)

ROSS DICKER S SilEPPARD (L)

E. COUPE GOLLER (L) (Ltr)

IPPOLITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E)

PETERSON P. CO L LINS TEDESCO YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L)

HARTFIELD (2)

DENISE J. COLLINS REGAN S. TEETS (L)

KLECKER REG OPR LAIN AS JECT LDR G. WILLI AMS (E)

EISENHUT

[lL'E & REGION (2)

BENAROYA J

V. WILSON (L)

WIGGINTON

~

M1rc VOLLMER A@ ESS 441. ING R ' t1 (L)

H. DUNCAN m 1L86 283 EXTEitN Al. DISTRIBUTION WI-LOCAL PDR "arrirburm Pa.

14 - TIC (ABERNATHY) (1)(2)(10) - NATIONAL LABS 1 - I'OR SAN /L A/NY W-NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 - W. PENNINGTON, Rm E 201 GT 1 - BROOKilAVEN MAT LAB 1 - ASLB 1 - CONSU LTANTS 1 - G. ULRIKSON ORN L 1

Newton Amferson NEWM AR K/BLUME/AG BABI AN ACRS we*MafaMS/SENT /d~ /,,4

~

7910s0o h():g/ g

7

/

s..riz p:._ar Regulatory Ucc,et file d

m rewra no rooangss METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY PCST CFFICE BOX 542 READING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601 December 11, 1975 cqL 1799 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: R. W. Reid, Director Operating Reactors Branch No. L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Reid:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 (TMI-1)

Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket Ko. 50-289 On November 12, 1975 Dr. D. Bridges and Mr. R. Bellamy of your Office telephoned and requested additional information regarding our technical specification change request on air treatment systems.

Attached please find our response to their requests.

Sincerely,

,f

,", 7~; }

,s

,n R. C./ rnold QN Vice President

( g/

'n,

,3 p

v RCA:CWS:tas f

g,;' -

' i

.i q

~.

p'~$

7,~5 5l-]g File:

20.1.1 /

7.7.h.3.3.1 t_.

-l y%,m. J.(

x

..a.#

1486 284 13333

-Additional Information-

.'echnical Specifications Change Request #7 Amendment #1 (Air Treatment Systems) p.gug;;"_......_ l b II* I NRC Request: You have specified h8 hcurs to achieve cold shutdevn if Specifications 3.15.1.2 and 3.15 2.2 are not met, we require 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. Justify needing h8 hours.

Response: The t ime to achieve cold shutdown depends on the following schedule.

1. Evaluation and decision to shutdown.

(Involves PORC review, analysis of problem; and notification of dispatcher) - 12 hcurs

2. 100% power to 10% power (turbine off line and breakers open) - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />

3. 10% power te 10-8 amps (including filling of the Steam Generators) - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> h Time at Het Shutdown (sample and analyze Reactor Building atmosphere, health phy sics surveys, and inspect secondary shield for identifiable leaks.

Admin. preparation for cooldown is run in parallel) - 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />

5. Cooldown to 300 psi, 275 F (includes bypassing and resetting RPS, running in and recocking safety rods, bypassing HPI and LPI. Time here is limited by adminstration, log keeping and assurance that no specificatiens are violated than physical ability of plant to cooldown). - 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />

6. Placing Decay Heat Removal in operation (system lineup, and precautions to ensure all Environmental Specificaticns are met). - 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> 0

7. Cco1down from 275 F to below 200 F - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> Total Hours h5 Note that although Cold Shutdown has histt rically been achieved in about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />, there have, hevever, never been any equipment =alfunctions which could have resulted in extending the time for cooldown. The above time esti=ates are also based on the mini =un time that should be alleved to accomplish each cooldown phase such that the plant operators are not forced, in any instance, to hurry the cooldown to meet a time clock. Hurried cooldown increases the probability of errors which could be of safety significance.

NRC Request: Justify Specification 3.15.1.3 or comply with cold shutdown in 7 days if one air treatment syste= is inoperable.

Response: Our potential concern in this specificatien is that if the carbon fails to meet the labcratory acceptance criteria, the carben cannot be replaced and tests ccupleted within 7 days.

The URC argument appears to be that if cne of the two systems is inoperable single failure criteria cannot be met.

The T:!I-1 Control Roce Air Treatment systet was not designed to meet single failure criteria and it is our understanding that no back fi:

is required in crder to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.52.

1486 285

- Analysis conducted by our consultants indicate that carbon efficiency can drop to as lov as 5% vithout exceeding criteria 19 for the control rocm inhabitants during a LOCA.

It sbcaid be further noted that even with 0% carbon efficiency the control room cou11 be continuously occupied for 30 days following a LOCA without e :ceeding these dose limits.

The probability of an accident wherein this eir treatment would be needed is very lov, the probability that both of the control room air tre'.tment s ystems would simultaneously be incapable of performing adequately to reduce control room dose to within acceptable limits is also very lov.

In light of these probabilities we believe that our air filter technical specifications as proposed are adequate and prudent.

It is Met-Ed's opinion that the probability of an accident involving radioactive release is much greater when the plant is subjected to transients such as heatup and cooldown when both operators and equipment are subjected to stresses. It is further our opinion that a requirement to go t o cold shutdown unnecessarily, as vould be required by you, creates more potential for personnel exposure than it vould prevent.

1486 286